The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-08-07

cause, while the Nentucky constltu-
ton ante dates this OF New Hamp-
shire in its adoption, that Of the lat
ter State was prepared nearly year
before and was pending before the
people when the Kentucky conven-
ton met.
Particular attention has been paid
to these constitutions and their anal
ysis in this resard, because when the
Tennessee convention of 1896 met
these we're the models before that
body, except that the amended con-
situation Of Delaware, OF 1881, men
toned out OF its order, must be now
excluded, as not before our first con-
vention. 1t did not copy, in all re-
spects, any model, but the phrase
ology used shows clearly that tho
Delaware and Kentucky LANGUAGE was
adapted to the article, so far as need
he, each being drawn upon, The
Kentucky contrivance required an
election for or against convention
in a specified year aud lat a general
election" The Delaware contriv-
ance, inierentislly only, left it TO the
General Assembly, without any linz
itation, to take the sense of the pso
pie for or against a convention lat
general election for representatives"
or else lett the people free at any
general election TO express that same
sense, as one may choose TO construe
it. But there was another mode of
amending the Delaware constitution
by legislative action described
| in the clause, whenever two
thirds of each House shall deem
il necessary TO propose amend
meuts, etc. This phraseology was
substantially used by Tennessee to
express the legislative action re-
quired to initiate the call for con-
ventiou, both getting the two-thirds
rule for inaugurating the process OIL
amendment from South Carolina.
1890 and Of the Federal Constitution
of 1857.
But when it comes Ia describing
the electoral body which shall pass
upon the question, instead of using
the Delaware rule OF "a majority OF
all the citizens in the State, having
right to vote for representatives, "
the Tennessee convention resorts to
the Kentucky rule aud phraseology,
and having, as in that State, provid-
ed for the submission OF the ques-
ton at an ELECTION for members TO
the General Assembly" proceeds TO
require "a majority OF all the citi-
xens of the State, voting for repre-
sentatives," to call the convention.
The language is precisely appropri-
ate, and there is no possible ambigu-
ity. In Kentucky aud Tennessee the
electoral body to call convention 10
make amendments, is the electors
voting for Representatives" at an
election. whore representatives are
simultaneously voted for, aud where,
as we have seen, the idea has been
expressed by the phrase in the origi-
nal models" vote also'-whilc in
Delaware it is AL the citizens in
rhe State having right 90 vote for
representatives" the election, how.
ever, being also held simultaneously
with an election for representatives
And, thus il appears that while the
electoral body IN each OF these di.
iercnt rules. is clearly pointed out;
in Kentucky aud Tennessee the con
trivasce is sell registering-it that
word may be employed TO
express the idea-just as uuch as in
those States, already noticed
where onlya majority Of those yot'
ing on the question is required. As
already pointed out, it was doubt
full il the analogous words OF New
Hampshire, 1872, possessed this Sc T.
registering quality, and 20 Kentucky
aud Tennessee left no doubt OF II. The
electoral body registers itself by the
vote for representatives by the
vote upon the question OF convention
or no conventiOn-and without tho
vote for representations there was no
electoral body pointed out by the 10
strumept, or registering itself at the
election for evidential purposes,
either one or the other. Ia
Delaware, the constitution defined
the electoral body with distinct.
ness, but this sclf.regisiering
quality, which was doubtful 10 New
hamshire and certain in Kentucky
aud Tennessee, was just as certainly
wanting there, and was supplied By
amendment 10 the Constitution Ia
1881, as has been seen. The Ken
lucky and Tennessee improvement
II il be one, was 90 define a different
, electoral body than the common one o
the vote cast upon the subject OF
question for election, and at the sam,
! time furnish an equally self-register
ing quality that would just As certain
, ~ make unnecessary all extraneou.
, inquiry A. TO the TACT OF the requisit,
, majority. The voting for represents
tiyes Just as oiiectullly as the other
: and just rs accurately as II did in tn
, choice OF representative At one an'
; the same time ascortainod, countot
, and registered the electoral body act
+. ing upon the call for a convention
, and this vote on an Independent
subject was referred to that rcgistr
, 10 determine its effect aud not 10 tn
/, rcgis,cry OF itsoyn vote, az is Gus
tomary 10 most elections.
Between 1876 aud 1884, when th
second Tennessee convention met
the building OF constitutions some
what increased. and they were eK
! panded in all directions with sup
posed improvements, including thi
subject OF amendments; PARTICULAR
In the matter OF taking the vote o
the people directly upon the work 0
> conventions, and ultimately Of max
= Ing specific amendments without th
. Intervention Of any connection a
= all, but great diversity pre-
: vailed ~ 10 details, the old model,
: however, being still visible In on
= way and another, our own OF 100
! becoming one Of these.
: Kentucky, again, leads Of in l79
}. with a provision changing her con
|. trivancc 10 pattern somewhat lik
q Delaware, bUequiring the Legislator
20 specify the alterations desired, an